CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 risk exists,19 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or to a denial of justice.20 6.6 The Committee observes that the authors had been granted subsidiary protection in Italy. It also observes that the Danish Immigration Service had confirmed their need for subsidiary protection. The authors have not pointed to any procedural irregularities in the decision-making procedure of the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. Nor have they substantiated that the decision to return them to Italy as their first country of asylum was manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary in nature. 21 In this respect the Committee notes the authors’ claim that while they had been issued valid residence permits in Italy for three years before they travelled to Norway in December 2012, they had not received financial or other assistance from the Italian authorities to find accommodation, work or permanent housing and that there was no effective integration scheme in Italy. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim that if returned to Italy they would be returning with two children with no right to access reception centres. The Committee notes, however, that in January 2012, upon the second author’s return from Norway after her asylum application had been rejected by the Norwegian authorities with reference to the Dublin II Regulation, she was hosted in a reception centre in Turin for two months and thereafter her residence permit was renewed for three additional years. As for the first author, the Committee notes that he had stayed in reception centres since his arrival in Italy in June 2011 until March 2012. The Committee concludes that the authors’ previous experiences in Italy do not substantiate their claim that if returned to Italy they will be at a real risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 7. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the authors’ claims under article 7 of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) 19 20 21 10 That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional That the decision be transmitted to the State party and to the authors. See communication No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, Lin v. Australia and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. The authors’ situation is different from the facts in communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin et al. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. In that case, the author was a single mother of three small children who was suffering from health problems. Her residence permit entitling her to work and benefit from the schemes of social assistance, health care, social housing and education had expired while in Italy. The State party had failed to take the author’s situation into account in an individualized risk assessment. GE.16-10167